Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable view possible; non-explanation of accused injuries, witness contradictions, inconsistent prosecution version justify upholding acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court) vide which, the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Radha Krishan (PW-4), was present in his home on 07.09.2011. The accused Mani Ram and Chanderbhan came to his house at about 8:00 pm and started abusing him without any reason. The informant enquired from the accused the reason for the abuse. The accused, Mani Ram and Chanderbhan, gave him beatings with fist and a stick. The informant and Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) sustained injuries in the incident. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry (Ex.PW4/A) was recorded in the daily diary. An application (Ex.PW8/A) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) examined Inderjeet and found that he had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused within 4 to 6 hours of examination. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW1/A). Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) also examined the informant, Radha Krishan, and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He referred the informant to a dental surgeon for expert opinion. Dr Sukriti Awasthi (PW-3) examined the informant and found that he had suffered a fracture of the tooth. She issued the report (Ex. PW3/A). Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) issued the final opinion (Ex. PW1/B) stating that the injuries were grievous and could have been caused within 4 to 6 hours of the examination. An FIR (Ex.PA) was registered. ASI Prithi Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW9/A). He recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) examined the injured. Soni Kumar (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar (PW-6) are the eyewitnesses. Dr Sukriti Awasthi (PW-3) is the dental surgeon who examined the informant. Radha Krishan (PW-4) is the informant. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) is the victim. MHC Anil Kumar (PW-7) proved entries in the daily diaries. HC Munshi Ram (PW-8) applied for medical examination of the injured. ASI Prithi Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC denied the prose